[Durham INC] **INC War Funding & Gay Marriage Resolutions**

[Joshua Allen]

Darius,

I appreciate your heartfelt response.  However, based on your email, I'm not
sure you have a full awareness of sexual orientation, civil rights, and
discrimination.  Sexual orientation is in the core of the human soul.  It is
not a choice or a life style.  It is as fundamental to a human as anything,
including race and gender.  Civil rights and discrimination are not
relegated to certain classifications, such as race.  Civil rights protect
individual freedoms from the government, regardless of classification.
 People are used to hearing civil rights related to race, but the
constitution does not classify it by race, but generally.   The government
should not be in the business of deciding who can marry whom.  It should
either let all people marry whom they want or get out of  marriage
altogether.  Churches are free to decide whom they want to marry... that's
their business and that's freedom of religion.  But the government has to
serve all people equally.  How would you like it if you could not marry the
person you love and receive the same rights as every other person.  I hope
you can expand your heart and mind on this.

And this is a neighborhood issue.  There are many gays and lesbians
throughout our neighborhoods.  Neighbors stand up and do the right thing
when others are being mistreated.  Civil rights cannot be obtained by just
the minority.  It takes the support of allies, and education of people.


On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Darius Mercedes Little <
duke1law at netscape.net> wrote:

> Dear Fellow  INC'ers:
>
> I hope all is well and that everyone is enjoying this weather.
>
> The purpose of this communication is to highlight my previously expressed
> concern as it relates to the resolution on "War Funding" dollars; which was
> presented to us at the last INC Meeting. Furthermore, I'd like to add that
> the new proposal which has been brought before us, from Duke Park --relating
> to a "Gay Marriage Resolution"-- lends more support to my original position
> that INC is not the appropriate venue for which to address a lot of these,
> social issues.
>
> First of all, let me begin by stating that my strong opposition to both of
> these resolutions is procedural.  While I personally do not endorse gay
> marriage, as a Christian who has his own areas that need constant improving,
> I don't cast stones, or stand in judgment of others. I leave the judgment as
> to the behavior of others, to God as my bible says all have fallen short and
> in life, we typically judge others rather firmly: based upon "what" they did
> (without looking at "why" they did it). Yet, when we, or someone we like, or
> care about, stands in judgment, we want others to understand "why" something
> happened, not to look at the act alone.  We're all inconsistent!  So, as a
> human, my job is to do my best, each day and be a blessing to others in the
> ways in which I am gifted.  Now, to the War dollars:  I, along with everyone
> else on earth, realize that the dollars going to support the War, could be
> utilized in our State Governments and trickled down to our local
> governments.  So, I'll firmly say I support ending the war and bringing our
> dollars home.
>
> Having said all of that, my opposition to both of these resolutions stems
> upon the fact that, as stated in my initial email:  I do not believe, based
> upon the Mission Statement of INC, as well as the Precedent which has been
> established by leadership, that we can remain consistent and fair in policy,
> by allowing eithr of these resolutions to be presented, and approved by our
> General Body.
>
> Some have expressed the accurate belief that 'War Dollars' (public tax
> dollars), as well as 'Gay Marriage' (Social Justice: I'm not going to say
> Civil Rights b/c I don't feel the framers of our Constitution were thinking
> of Gay Marriage when they were creating such tenants; but that's a
> discussion for dinner) are issues which affect "neighborhoods" due to the
> fact that they are popular stances, about which all individuals have an
> opinion.  I agree, they are issues worthy of discussion in any public,
> communal capacity.  However, the INC Mission Statement specifically
> expresses the following: * "Our mission is to promote the quality,
> stability and vitality of Durham's residential neighborhoods."*
> **
> Neither of these resolutions' passages will directly result in the specific
> addressing of matters which adversely affect the "quality, stability and
> vitality" of the Durham Neighborhoods we represent, nor the Durham Community
> at-large.
>
> I feel emotions ar high, at a time when a lot of National Issues are
> receiving limelight and that peole --with good intention-- are reaching for
> any, and every, avenue by which to have "their" most important issue,
> supported.  That is god.  It's called lobbying.  However, what seperates INC
> from every other social and political entity is the fact that we have not,
> historically, just jumped into every catfight.  We have addressed issues,
> successfully and aggressively, that directly, and in dramatic fashion,
> affect Neighborhoods in Durham.  Neither the War, nor Gay Marriage, are
> issues which are the bedrock of the sustainability of our Durham
> Neighborhoods.  They are good discussion material and teach us a lot,
> however, they are not consistent with what INV addresses.
>
> Now, before anyone feels I am belittling their efforts (I am not), let me
> add the fact that I have brought issues to INC which I felt were important,
> and have been told that they were more social issues, than Neighborhood
> Issues and as such, INC was not the avenue to address them.  These were
> issues related to Fayetteville Street, the African-American Community and
> needs, which I felt were important.  But INC did not address them.  I was
> not offended, and did not interpret these matters as a slight to my
> concern.  I realized that INC's effectiveness would dwindle, if it became
> viewed as an organization that entangled itself in every fist fight.  We've
> been effective because we are unique in our battle selection.  And our
> successes carry weight, in my opinion, only because we choose battles that
> are close to home, which we can have our collective hands on and fight,
> directly.  We leave the larger issues to our City Council, County
> Commissioners, School Board and Durham Legislative Delegation, to lobby; the
> Matricular Consular, for example.  Everything that occurs in Duham affects
> its Citizens, which in-turn, affects every neighborhood.  If we entertain
> and allow the passage of these resolutions, we will open a pandora's box and
> will not, be able to fairly, reject anything that comes before us hereafter.
>
> Now, if people are hellbent on addressing these issues through INC, I'd
> submit there must be a change in ByLaws and Mission Statement.  So, as I
> originally stated: this discussion, again, is procedural.  Is INC equipped
> to address these issues from a standpoint of being "effective" (because
> remember, we are seeking quality, stability and vitality in our battles for
> "Durham Neighborhoods")?  If so, then the Mission Statement needs to be
> changed, to be more broad.  And furthermore, we need to create a policy for
> which issues we entertain, and which we do not.
>
> Lastly, we need to address participation.  According to the Secretary and
> Treasurer, only seven (7) neighborhoods have paid their dues.  So, are we
> going to open the floodgates of issues we address to anything across the
> State and Globe, yet not enforce participation requirements?  I ask this
> because though I've been attending for quite a while now, consistently,
> until I paid dues, and got on the books officially, my participation was
> restricted.
>
> So these are my thoughts and I'd love feedback.  I thoroughly enjoy INC and
> the time we've all gotten to actually get to know one another.  I care about
> each of you, and consider you friends.  These are my opinions and they are
> heartfelt, so I hope that no individual was offended.  If so, I apologize.
> I am simply addressing what I feel are legitimate concerns.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Darius Little
>
>
>
>
>  --------------------
> Darius M. Little
> Executive Business Consultant  and
> Strategic Marketing Analyst
> (c) 919-641-4124
> (web) www.linkedin.com/in/dariuslittle
>
> Manta Business Profile/Report:
> http://www.manta.com/c/mtlwj1m/little-s-business-consulting
>
>
> "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall
> receive." [Matt 21:22]
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Allen <allen.joshua at gmail.com>
> To: TheOcean1 at aol.com
> Cc: inc-list at durhaminc.org
> Sent: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 11:35 am
> Subject: Re: [Durham INC] [dukepark] Duke park--requesting feedback on gay
> marriage resolution
>
>  I'm glad someone is spearheading this!  I think the resolution is great.
>  It's so important to have many diverse voices heard on this issue.  It's
> awesome to have neighborhoods supporting the gay and lesbian community.
> When lawmakers hear only from the gays and lesbians, it just doesn't have
> the same effect as having neighborhoods and business owners rally with
> support as well. In NY, Republican business owners lobbied the state
> legislator in support of gay marriage, which recently passed there.   That
> made a big difference.
>
>  We will take this up at our next Watts Hillandale board meeting.  Thanks.
>
>
>  --Joshua Allen
> WHHNA President
>
>  On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM, <TheOcean1 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> **
>> At the bottom is a resolution that is being test marketed on the Duke Park
>> listserv with unanimous results so far.
>> Please forward to your neighborhoods
>>
>> *Bill Anderson*
>>
>>  In a message dated 7/11/2011 10:44:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> dorseymt at mindspring.com writes:
>>
>>
>>    Support the resolution.****
>> ****
>> Mary on Hollywood****
>> ****
>>  ------------------------------
>>  *From:* **dukepark at yahoogroups.com** [mailto:**dukepark at yahoogroups.com*
>> *] *On Behalf Of ***readlaw at aol.com**
>> *Sent:* Monday, July 11, 2011 11:41 AM
>> *To:* **dukepark at yahoogroups.com**
>> *Subject:* [dukepark] ****Duke** **park****--requesting feedback on gay
>> marriage resolution****
>>  ****
>>   ****
>>   We will take this up at the August board meeting (Tuesday, August 9).
>> If you do not plan to attend and would like to express your position please
>> reply to board at dukepark.org.  ****
>>  ****
>>   Dan
>>
>> Daniel F. Read
>> President, ****Duke** **Park**** Neighborhood Association*
>> *****1424 Acadia St.**, **Durham** **NC** **27701****
>> **readlaw at aol.com** 919-688-0535 FAX 919-682-4955****
>>   ****
>>   In a message dated 7/11/2011 11:12:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> gary_jddurham at yahoo.com writes:****
>>
>>   ****
>>   Hello neighbors,****
>>  ****
>>  I, along with the help of some other neighbors, have drafted a
>> resolution to present to the INC regarding pending legislation that would
>> put an anti-marriage equality amendment to the state constitution on the
>> ballot in 2012.  The legislature will meet in September to consider this,
>> and it is important to show any of our state representitives or senators who
>> may be on the fence on this issue that ****Durham****'s neighborhoods
>> support its gay and lesbian residents.  As this resolution would have to be
>> approved by ****Duke** **Park**** as well as the other neighborhood
>> associations, I am presenting it to the listserv for approval or suggestions
>> for alterations.  It is important to indicate if you do or do not support
>> the resolution so that our representative can determine how to vote on our
>> behalf.  If anyone wishes to forward it to other neighborhood lists, that
>> would be great as I only subscribe to this one.  Hopefully if the resolution
>> has a favorable reception, we can bring it up for a vote at the next INC
>> meeting at the end of the month.  I'll attach and copy the resolution
>> below.  Thanks for your time and support.****
>>  ****
>>  Gary Rosche, W Knox****
>>  ****
>>  Whereas **Durham** has a tradition of being a progressive beacon in the
>> state of ****North Carolina****, ****
>> And whereas the neighborhood associations of ****Durham**** have always
>> served as incubators for the grassroots activism that has fueled that
>> progressive reputation, ****
>> And whereas our own elected officials have shown their commitment to
>> making Durham a welcoming community for gays and lesbians by passing
>> resolutions supporting marriage equality and providing  domestic partner
>> benefits to the employees of the City and the County of Durham,****
>> And whereas ****Durham**** is rightfully proud of its ability to embrace
>> diversity and champion equality for all,****
>> It is therefore resolved that the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
>> (INC) supports the civil rights of its gay and lesbian neighbors, including
>> the right to marry, and opposes SB 106 and HB 777 which would place on the
>> ballot in 2012 a referendum to amend the North Carolina Constitution to
>> prohibit marriage, and prohibit the recognition of any other form of
>> domestic legal union, between people of the same gender.****
>> ****SB 106:
>> http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/Senate/PDF/S106v0.pdf****
>> HB 777:
>> http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H777v0.pdf****
>>   ****
>>
>>     __._,_.___
>>  Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New
>> Topic
>> Messages in this topic (7)
>> Recent Activity:
>>
>>    - New Members 4
>>
>> Visit Your Group
>>  [image:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbmRxMzRzBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzI4MTg3MDYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE2MDYxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzEwNDM4NjUw]
>> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
>>    .
>>
>> __,_._,___
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Durham INC Mailing List
>> list at durham-inc.org
>> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing Listlist at durham-inc.orghttp://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>
>


-- 
Joshua
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110712/03abf609/attachment.html>